Forum:Archiving article talk pages
Hopefully a quick one. Can we archive article talk pages by year, or by something like per ten topics? It just gets to be a pain trying to scroll down even the table of contents for some pages every time. 05:22, June 12, 2015 (UTC) Discussion I say after every 50 topics or so would do. Some articles go for years without any new topics, so a year-by-year basis seems hard for some cases. 05:40, June 12, 2015 (UTC) As JOP said, I'd say every ten topics/sections. 07:53, June 12, 2015 (UTC) Do we have to set a specific "unit"? Can we just split up the page as we see fit? There are single section that goes on forever while other have just a couple of replies. I suggest every 100 edits. (I really have to be careful in replying starting then) Though no matter what "unit" you suggest, it will never be uniform... :Actually, I correct myself: we could use the page dimension as unit, we can check it in the page history. That way you can set a defined limit that will be the same for all pages. That or just use common sense. I suggested 10 topics, because that's the amount at least I can see on the table of contents without scrolling when the page first loads- Like so. 15:04, June 12, 2015 (UTC) 10 is obviously too short. Should only be decided by length. SeaTerror (talk) 19:48, June 12, 2015 (UTC) On article talk pages? I don't know. Look at Talk:Chapters and Volumes, for example. Page dimension is probably the most accurate, but then we'd probably end up cutting topics in half. 20:14, June 12, 2015 (UTC) That's also true, but if we go with that obviously we should make it an exception. I still think that "common sense" is the best way... just give roughly an indication how "big" an archive should be and that's it. Agreed on "common sense". 20:45, June 12, 2015 (UTC) And common sense indicates that each archive should be how long? Because I feel like everyone is going to have different opinions. 20:53, June 12, 2015 (UTC) I don't think we really need to waste anyone's time with specific times when we can archive talks. And we run into issues like what the main criteria for archiving is (Time of post, number of posts, or length of posts, etc) Personally, I think page length is the only real reason to archive a talk. So if something's too long, just go ahead and archive it. Just leave any active sections (or the most recent if none are active) and put everything else on the archive. I mean, if someone archives a talk page, is anyone going to fight it? And personally, I'd say stuff like Talk:Donquixote Doflamingo is well over twice the length needed for an archive, and things like Talk:Pacifista are kind of right around the line of where I would archive. 20:53, June 12, 2015 (UTC) ^Agreed with the part about archiving when the page just feels too long. Makes sense now. 20:57, June 12, 2015 (UTC) Also when we archive, do we just post the link to the archive and name it "Archive 1, 2" etc., or do we want to do some sort of actual tab? It'll look nice, but it also seems like too much work. 21:00, June 12, 2015 (UTC) We do tabs. There's the Parent Tab Template that makes it real easy. Really, you can just look at any talk page with an archive, and copy/paste the code, just changing the link to the new page. 23:11, June 12, 2015 (UTC) So archive occurs when it appears to be too long? 00:13, June 13, 2015 (UTC) The main issue with archiving talk pages are there are some older topics that could potentially be bumped later when something is revealed or something new is noticed. It's stupid to have to remake the same discussion over and over again because of an archive. SeaTerror (talk) 02:34, June 13, 2015 (UTC) ^True. And yeah Yata, at least that's what people meant when they said "common sense". @ST maybe we could add some kind of notice on archived talk pages that tell people to check the archives before starting a new topic? 05:49, June 15, 2015 (UTC) Bah, read ST's comment wrong. Thought he meant "People might start the same topics over and over again not knowing it's already been discussed before and archived". I feel like the only topics on talk pages worthy of being bumped are the ones that could become their own forums. That, or else they'd still have the active discussion template. If not, people can just bump the topic on the new page and link to the previous archived discussion. I doubt topics will need to be bumped more than once or twice if they are important enough to be addressed. 06:03, June 15, 2015 (UTC) Sabo was a big one but that was lucky to not have been archived at the time. When Monet comes back that will be an issue since her talk is archived. SeaTerror (talk) 19:07, June 15, 2015 (UTC) Wait. I just found Category:Archived Talk Pages *facepalm*. Seems like so far, there isn't any single particular rule we've been constantly following for archiving other than the "common sense" thing, and I don't really mind that. I'd propose we add some kind of template to talk pages with archives that remind users to check the archives before posting and linking to the archive if they wish to revive an archived topic though. Thoughts?? 20:26, June 15, 2015 (UTC) If you want to restart a discussion on an archived talk, just copy/paste the section back to the main talk page. It's not like these pages are locked or anything. 21:18, June 15, 2015 (UTC) ^Wouldn't that make scrolling a pain though? 22:19, June 15, 2015 (UTC) I guess it might, if the main talk page has gotten longer since being archived. But then you can just move things to another archive. If the page is too long archive it, if you want to discuss an archived section, move it out of the archive. It's not rocket science people. If you want something, just do it. 01:39, June 16, 2015 (UTC) "If you want something, just do it"- That's what starts edit wars though... But I think we do have a general consensus of archiving when an article talk pages whenever they just seem too long. We can add notices on the top of pages with archives if we want, I guess. Unless anyone has anything else to add, let's end this discussion. 04:44, June 16, 2015 (UTC) Ok. Seems like we have a general consensus. Removing this from active discussions. 22:53, June 17, 2015 (UTC)